6. The networks also bought into the DaVinci Code craze by picking up and publicizing other Code-related
books attacking Christianity and the Catholic Church, but their
standard of evidence was hardly an example of what a skeptical
journalist would apply.

6. The networks also bought into the DaVinci Code craze by picking up and publicizing other Code-related
books attacking Christianity and the Catholic Church, but their
standard of evidence was hardly an example of what a skeptical
journalist would apply.

Authors of new books like The Jesus Papers and The Jesus Dynasty were
offered publicity forums, even though the network journalists announced
the evidence behind the claims were flimsy at best. So why did the
networks promote them?

The April 2 edition of Dateline on Michael Baigent’s new book The Jesus Papers is
perhaps the richest example. The show included Baigent critics, such
as Father Thomas Williams to defend the Vatican, but also included
liberal professor Elaine Pagels, a promoter of "alternative" takes on
Christianity, to question Baigent’s claims.

First, Baigent claimed Pontius Pilate wanted to spare Jesus from
dying since he had supported paying taxes to Rome. Reported Sara James:
"According to Baigent, Jesus and his supporters were also in on this
plot.Baigent acknowledges there’sno proof of his theory, but points out that it was possible to survive crucifixion."

Dateline chronicled how Baigent was searching for a letter
claiming Jesus was alive in 45 AD, more than 10 years after the
crucifixion. Baigent claimed the letter was seen by an Anglican canon,
Alfred Lilley. James and Baigent have this exchange:

James: "Baigent admits he never met
Lilly, who is dead. He’s never seen the document. Nor does he have
any idea what the document said. Even Baigent concedes this story
has a lot of holes."

Baigent: " I know, it’s terrible, isn’t it?"

James: "It’s a pretty tall order."

Baigent: "It is a tall order, and I wish we could make it more solid. But we can’t."

James: "Especially when you’re talking
about something as fundamental as questioning whether or not Jesus
died on the cross."

Baigent: "I know, but what can we do?"

"We" could start by not airing TV "news"segments until there’s a
shred of evidence. This happened several times more during the show,
providing a new explanation for why Baigent is so inept in finding his
Jesus papers: It’s the Vatican’s fault.

James: "What do you think happened to the document, the one that said that Jesus was alive in 45 A.D?"

Baigent: "I think it’s in the Vatican."

James: "Michael, are you suggesting that the Vatican knows that Jesus was alive in 45 A.D., and is hiding that fact?"

Baigent: "I am suggesting that, oddly enough."

James: But you have no proof."

Baigent: "I have no proof."

To demonstrate how Dateline was almost comedic in their
indulgence of the unproven, host Stone Phillips asked viewers to stay
tuned: "He’s already made a wild claim that Jesus survived the
crucifixion. Wait until you hear what else Michael Baigent writes in
his new book. Should anyone take him seriously? When Dateline continues." Obviously, Dateline took him seriously. They aired his bizarre, evidence-lacking claims in front of millions of people.

Then at the end, the Jesus-denying expert turned the show on its
head. James asked Baigent: "It strikes me that what you’re doing is
asking us to take a leap of faith." Baigent replied: "I suppose in one
sense, that could be true."

ABC devoted a Good Morning America segment and a Nightline segment on April 7 to Dr. James Tabor, whose book The Jesus Dynasty
claims that Jesus was not divine, and that John the Baptist was his
equal, and that Jesus was fathered neither by God nor Joseph, but
another man, possibly a Roman soldier named Pantera. ABC Nightline
anchor Martin Bashir showed his casual approach to the facts by noting
the recently discovered "ossuary of James," now discredited by
archaeologists, is still perhaps authentic: he reported that merely
"some scholars have dismissed it as a forgery," but Tabor has not.

ABC aired an entire 60-minute PrimeTime special last December
29 spreading the anti-Catholic legend of "Pope Joan," a supposed female
Pope slaughtered by the faithful when she when into labor pains. Host
Diane Sawyer, the same one who demanded facts from Mel Gibson, was
clearly enamored by this feminist-pleasing tale: "Amid the clues, the
controversy, denials, and from scholars, ridicule...But something
whispers across the years. If it is myth is there a meaning?...Legend,
fact, fantasy. Tonight, the astonishing tale ripped from a dark-age
headline, the woman said to have become the Holy Father, the mystery of
Pope Joan."

Sawyer’s syrupy prose continued throughout: "It is a story as old as
the cobblestones of Europe, as immediate as any woman’s ambition, any
century’s dreams...remember this is not a fairy tale. It is one of the
world’s oldest and most fascinating puzzles." She sees a modern
parallel to this mythical church of the ninth century. While Italians
on the street acknowledge the female-Pope legend, she said, "try asking
those questions to some nuns and priests, and they shy away. After
all, take a look at the hierarchy of the Catholic Church today. Women
resolutely excluded from true circles of power."

And she had an inspiration: "The DaVinci Code has made conspiratorialists of all of us."

Wouldn’t you think that in the supposedly tough-as-nails environs of
the hard news business –– with the newsroom mottoes about "if your
mother says she loves you, check it out" –– this entire type of show
would be forbidden? "News" specials based on novelists and
legend-spinners? Long elaborations of "extraordinary claims" about
Jesus, and proof is not required? Why is Christianity (and in some
cases, Catholicism) singled out for these dogmatic, evidence-challenged
expressions of unbelief?

Christian evangelist and talk-show host Hank Hanegraaff has argued that The DaVinci Code
"is based on an idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism that is fond of
making dogmatic assertions while failing to provide defensible
arguments." On questions of faith and reason, religion and science, why
are Christians assumed to be lacking the evidence to make them worthy
to appear on network broadcasts, but the networks freely award time to
dogmatic anti-Christian critics of Jesus with an almost non-existent
burden of proof?

Federal employees and military personnel can donate to the Media Research Center through the Combined Federal Campaign or CFC. To donate to the MRC, use CFC #12489. Visit the CFC website for more information about giving opportunities in your workplace.